Chubb Ltd. is not required to contribute to a $ 1.5 million asbestos solution on behalf of Anheuser-Busch LLC due to an exclusion exclusively in its coverage, a federal court said Tuesday in a ruling against a unit in Zurich Insurance Group Ltd. 19659002] Zurich American Insurance Co. provided coverage to St. Louis-based Anheuser-Busch for personal injuries and cover liability protection from July 1972 to July 1980, when Insurance Co. in North America, now part of Chubb, began to insure the company for liability for the next 17 consecutive years, according to Tuesday's verdict by the US District Court in St. Louis i Zurich American Insurance Co. against Insurance Co., North America, et al. [1
Zurich agreed to defend Anheuser-Busch in the case of the reservation of rights to apply for grants for the insured periods after 1980. The case was settled in 2014 for $ 1.5 million.
Zurich brought an action against INA for granting the ruling in the district court, and both insurers objected to the summary judgment on the question whether INA was required to contribute to $ 1.5 million in residence and $ 79,298 in defense costs.
The court ruled in favor of the INA, based on its exclusion from exclusion, although Zurich considered that the exclusion did not "explicitly or clearly contain asbestos".
INA claims that the coverage of contaminants of exclusion is insufficient since it meant "irritation, contamination and / or contamination as" discharge (d), dispersion (ed), relative (d) or escape (d) into "atmosphere" "And thereby damaging the underlying deed," said the court.
The court agreed. "There is no ambiguity in the terms of the policy, which clearly reflects the coverage of the types of asbestos claims" arising in the case, the court said.
Zürich's lawyer had no comment while Chubb's lawyer did not promptly respond to a request for comment.
Last week, a federal appeal court confirmed the dismissal of disputes filed against the Liberty Mutual Insurance Group based on an exclusion of political pollution after agreeing with the lower court that the testimony from the plaintiff's expert evidence should be excluded.